C.SUBRAMANIAN Vs. V.SHANMUGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the Original Suit, assailing the Judgment and Decree dated December 8, 2017 passed in A.S.No.42 of 2016 by the 'II Additional Subordinate Court, Villupuram' ['First Appellate Court' for brevity], wherein and whereby the Judgment and Decree dated February 3, 2016 passed in O.S.No.152 of 2013 by the 'Principal District Munsif Court, Thirukoilur' [henceforth 'Trial Court'] was confirmed.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

(3.) The plaintiffs are a married couple with three children, the youngest of whom is Rajasekar. The defendants are also a married couple, with the 1st defendant being the maternal uncle of 2nd plaintiff. Although the defendants were married in 1993, they were issueless. Hence, out of kindness, the plaintiffs allowed the defendants to take care of their 3rd child - Rajasekar by leaving him under the defendants custody. The plaintiffs never gave him in adoption to the defendants. However, the defendants took advantage of the custody, and obtained a Deed from the plaintiffs through false representation. The plaintiffs became aware of this Deed as an Adoption Deed only on June 11, 2012, when they demanded return of the child. Plaintiffs claim that no adoption ceremonies were performed and they never consented to the alleged adoption. Currently, the defendants' marital relationship has deteriorated. The 1st defendant developed a relationship outside of marriage with one A****** [name masked for the sake of privacy] and have a female child through her. After the birth of this female child, the 1st defendant failed to maintain Rajasekar. Consequently, the plaintiffs demanded return of his custody. In response, the 1st defendant claimed that the child was adopted by him through an Adoption Deed dated April 20, 2005, which was actually obtained falsely. Further, the 1st defendant deserted his wife / 2nd defendant. Currently, child - Rajasekar is in the custody of the 2nd defendant, who is now living without sufficient income in a penurious condition unable to maintain the child. Despite this, the 2nd defendant refused to return the child to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed the Suit praying to declare the Adoption Deed as null and void, and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to hand over custody of the child to the plaintiffs.